Douglas & Ors v Hello! Ltd.& Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 139 (12 February 2003)

Douglas & Ors v Hello! Ltd.& Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 139 (12 February 2003)

The Court of Appeal held that the claimants had a good arguable case against Mr Ramey for participation in a common design to breach confidence and privacy, and for breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998, sufficient to justify service out of the jurisdiction. The pleadings disclosed a reasonable prospect of success, and the jurisdictional gateways under CPR 6.20 were satisfied.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 139
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Michael Douglas; Claimant/appellant: Catherine Zeta-Jones; Claimant/appellant: Northern & Shell PLC; 1st Defendant/intervener: Hello! Limited; 2nd Defendant/intervener: Hola S. A.; 3rd Defendant/intervener: Eduardo Sanchez Junco; 4th Defendant: The Marquesa de Varela; 5th Defendant: Neneta Overseas Limited; 6th Defendant/respondent: Philip Ramey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division on Pre Trial Jurisdictional/procedural Question
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Right to Privacy, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Data Protection Act 1998, Joint Tortfeasance, Conspiracy, Economic Torts
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Tort Law Data Protection Breach of Confidence Right to Privacy Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Douglas

Claimant/appellant

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Claimant/appellant

Northern & Shell PLC

Claimant/appellant

Hello! Limited

1st Defendant/intervener

Hola S. A.

2nd Defendant/intervener

Eduardo Sanchez Junco

3rd Defendant/intervener

The Marquesa de Varela

4th Defendant

Neneta Overseas Limited

5th Defendant

Philip Ramey

6th Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division on Pre Trial Jurisdictional/procedural Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a good arguable case against Mr Ramey to justify service out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.20
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose a reasonable prospect of success against Mr Ramey for breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998, and economic torts

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the claimants had a good arguable case against Mr Ramey for participation in a common design to breach confidence and privacy, and for breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998, sufficient to justify service out of the jurisdiction. The pleadings disclosed a reasonable prospect of success, and the jurisdictional gateways under CPR 6.20 were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Claimants' appeal allowed
  • Order as per counsel's agreed Minute of Order